Talk:Historically informed performance

Mozart, Portamento

This is a very good interesting article. I enjoyed it very much, thank you. I tend to be enthousiastic about authentic performance, and in fact this article enlightened me about my own listening habits and aesthetical preferences. I have two questions, and I'd like to politely ask for a slight extension of the article, at least w. r. t. the second question.

In the section "Authenticity or contemporary taste" it reads: "First, it is known from Mozart's correspondence that he was enthusiastic about the idea of performing his symphonies with very large orchestral forces, along the lines of 40 violins, with analogous numbers for the other instruments." Is there any debate about what exactly this means for the performance of the symphonies? My first reaction when reading this was to say to my self "Well, he might have wished for a large orchester, but the music he wrote was written for small ones." I wonder whether this is actually the case. This being a somewhat important issue, I'd imagine that it has already been debated. I could also imagine that there is some reasoning about it possible based on a thorough analysis of Mozart's Symphonies. (I seem to recall, btw., that there are "authentic" performances of Mozart's symphonies with rather large orchestras.)

Hi Utis,

Hmmm, I need to look this up in the book I read it in, which I don't have with me right now. Bear with me...

The same section also states that "portamento" is hardly used in authentic performances. While the text describes succesfully what portamento is, it does not say anything about its musical or aesthetical qualities. Not bein a trained musician, I understand the words, but I can't imagine "how it would sound", so to say. What are the reasons that not even proponents of authentic performances want to make use of portamento? -- Utis 13:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll give this a try: basic idea is it slurs the boundaries between the notes. Opus33 15:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It does indeed clarify the issue for me. IMO, it is also a stronger argument than the use of small orchestras for this statement: "This supports the view that the authentic performance movement exists in large part to satisfy musical tastes that were evolving in a particular direction in any event." (Did I already mention that I find this article enlightening? I have always been wondering something like this myself.)

[As an aside: I guess that the truth lies somewhere in between. I think that those musical tastes have both been the source of the desire for authenticity as well as the result of it (musical tasted shaped by perfomance practice). But the desire for purity and clearness, which created the authentic performance movement and which at the same time has been created by it, does at the same time preclude things like portamento. But maybe I make the mistake here to judge too much from my own experiences.] --- Utis 14:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Period Performance

This is a well done article, but why is it called "authentic performance?" I think "period performance" would be a better title because it is more neutral sounding and because the phrase "period performance" is more commonly used. This article is balanced and its title ought to reflect this balance.

Please sign your posts. I've never heard the term "period performance." Really the most common term is "performance practice," but "authentic performance" widely used as well. Another common one is "historically informed performance," although that means something slightly different. —Wahoofive | Talk 22:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard of the term "period performance," but I also haven't heard of "authentic performance." "Performance practice" is probably the most widely used and the most neutral term. I believe it is the term used in the Grove Dictionary. "Authenticity" is often a separate issue and a contentious one, and moreover a more modern development than the study of performance practice itself. --Jinnentonik 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've read the article, this seems like it should be titled "Historically informed performance." At the very least there should be an explanation at the beginning.--Jinnentonik 03:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The movement

I was surprised that the article made no mention of Arnold Dolmetch and his 1915 book The Interpretation of the Music of the XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries. I think he made a major contribution to the movement (although opinion of what is truly authentic may have changed since his day). I haven't edited the article because I don't want to damage its overall coherence by tacking on a reference, but suggest that Dolmetch should be credited. Bluewave 10:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not start by adding it to the bibliography? Robert Donington and Thurston Dart should go there too. In fact, the biblio section is currently very strange: a couple of tertiary sources and one very specialized one. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's go with more articulated lists

Hello,

Someone started an overall, generic list of authentic performance artists. But the article already mentions lots of them--in the right places; that is, sorted by kind of performer (fortepianist, countertenor, etc.), and coming after the discussion of the relevant instrument or voice. I think this is far more useful to a reader than an undifferentiated list would be.

It's true that to find these lists you have to read the article, but why should we care about Wikipedia users who don't want to bother with reading the article?

B.t.w. if by "Carmina Burana" was meant the work by Carl Orff--that's a 20th century work, meant to be performed by a huge orchestra and chorus using modern instruments. It wouldn't really fit in here anyway.

Opus33 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not care about the readers? Surely it is for them that wikipedia is created and maintained, not for its contributors to show off their encyclopaedic knowledge.

Couldn't see a reference to Carmina Burana anywhere - was it on an earlier version of the page? This is the first time I have looked here. The reference would probably be to the most important source of 12th century Latin poetry (lit. Songs of Beuren) that Orff later used as the text for his work (without any associated melodies). 82.5.37.208 12:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Catalog of Authentic Instruments

The instruments themselves are fascinating. Apparently there are others scored by well known classical composers, such as Berlioz, not yet mentioned in this article.

http://www.berliozhistoricalbrass.org/buccin.htm

There is a Wiki entry for "authentic instruments" which likewise falls short of comprehensiveness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period_instruments

Nomenclature

• Authentic performance and period performance refer to attempts to re-create exactly the performance details of the past in a modern performance
• Historically-informed performance refers to performances which choose some performance practices and omit others, sometimes for purposes of audience appeal.
• Performance practice refers to details of performance technique which were used in performances within historical styles periods, as well as they can be ascertained.

Where is the above section duplicated? I find no reference to period performance without it. Hyacinth 03:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this, Hyacinth. I've filled the gap and also added a redirect from Period performance. Opus33 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)